Despite the State Comptroller's unambiguous conclusion in 2000 that, “Even after the Landau Commission's report, the phenomenon of lying by GSS interrogators before legal bodies has not been uprooted,” the Supreme Court (SCt) has not studied the ensuing lessons. For example, the plea bargain in the Islamic Movement case uncovered an entirely different normative reality from that which the GSS brought before the SCt, resulting in the SCt's extension of the accuseds' detention three times. In many cases - relying on GSS secret evidence - the SCt dismissed petitions against orders prohibiting detainees from meeting attorneys “for security reasons.” After one or two days, however, the detainees are released without charge. We now know the indictment against Tali Fahima contains the core of the secret evidence relied upon by the SCt to uphold her administrative detention; this supports the argument that her criminal detention is unjustified. The defense in the Islamic Movement case knew that the prosecutor’s evidence was unsound, but agreed to plea bargain, fearing that the SCt’s decisions would influence the trial court, and continuing the trial would lengthen their detention. These rational reasons lead to the conclusion that - despite their plea - they did not commit any crime.